Re: ISSUE 1583 status

Charles Lindsey wrote:
> In <[email protected]> Russ Allbery <[email protected]> writes:
>
>   
>>           <t>The &lt;chksernr> argument may be any positive integer.  If
>>           present, it MUST increase with every change to the newsgroup
>> -          list and MUST NOT ever decrease.  If provided, news servers
>> -          SHOULD remember the &lt;chksernr> value of the previous
>> -          checkgroups control message honored for a particular hierarchy
>> -          or sub-hierarchy and decline to honor any subsequent checkgroups
>> -          control message for the same hierarchy or sub-hierarchy with a
>> -          smaller &lt;chksernr> value.</t>
>> +          list, MUST NOT ever decrease, and MUST be included in all
>> +          subsequent checkgroups control messages with the same scope.
>> +          If provided, news servers SHOULD remember the &lt;chksernr>
>> +          value of the previous checkgroups control message honored for a
>> +          particular hierarchy or sub-hierarchy and decline to honor any
>> +          subsequent checkgroups control message for the same hierarchy
>> +          or sub-hierarchy with a smaller &lt;chksernr> value or with no
>> +          &lt;chksernr> value.</t>
>>     
>
> A touch too strong for my liking. Perhaps "... and report for human
> evaluation any subsequent checkgroups control message for the same
> hierarchy or sub-hierarchy with a smaller &lt;chksernr> value or with no
> &lt;chksernr> value.".
>
> But even that seems to suggest that valid chechgroups should be accepted
> on "auto-pilot", which is probably not a good idea.
>
> But I am not pressing this too strongly if others are happy.
>   
So far, Russ and I are happy, and the rest of the list are silent, so 
you're a minority. Let's finish this one.